Danziger Gallery Exhibits "AI-generated color version" of Ansel Adams' "Moonrise, Hernadez, New Mexico" at AIPAD

[Don_ih]

Apparently you are so vested in your opinions that you can’t comprehend the opinions or experience of others.

No, I don't find my opinions particularly precious - but at least they are mine. As for art - the fact is the majority of art is not funding a business, makes no money, with artists living off some other sort of income. But I do have difficulty discerning what it is you are actually arguing for. You are arguing against whatever anyone says. But what are you arguing for? What is your opinion - free from discussing legal issues and monetary values.

Actually, you know what? I don't care. I don't feel much to desire to try to engage someone so presumptuous in conversation. You don't know me and it's inappropriate to make such statements in a discussion. It's amazing the things people will say behind the comfort and with the courage of distance and anonymity.

 

[Willy T]

And I for winking at your discords too
Have lost a brace of kinsmen

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Drew, were the later prints copyrighted?

 

[BrianShaw]

We're the later prints copyrighted?

Much earlier in the discussion, Alan, I posted a link to the Trust's copyright page. It notes that Moonrise is copyrighted by the Trust (renewals and new alike) over 100 times. (That's an estimate; please don't count and hold my feet to the fire.) Various print editions, books, etc.

 

[Carnie Bob]

Thanks all for your concern about my health. Things are fairly OK right now. Getting old stinks.

Alan getting old is a gift , cherish it.

 

[cowanw]

Art is a business. Let's face it, everyone needs to make a living, including artists and their support system. The only folks that seem to think that at should be pure and unadulterated and virginal are internet pundits who either aren't artists or have some other revenue stream to support heir art pursuuits/

In 1928, there were plenty of people who questioned Stieglitz's ethics, no internet required.

 

[DREW WILEY]

His wife certainly questioned his ethics; but I don't see that coming into play with his gallery. It was more Stieglitz's audacity to represent unfamiliar modernistic content from both Europe and the US, wasn't it? He did display some of O'Keefe's paintings without her permission first. We all know how that turned out to her favor, etc, etc. But he was a highly skilled photographer and printmaker in his own right. I've spent hours looking at his original prints. Amazing. But that Danzinger fiasco would have me snoring, if it weren't for the outrageous act of piracy itself.

 

[cowanw]

Your post does not address my post and is a rhetorical response, in my opinion.
The most concerning of his efforts was to sell, I think, six paintings and quote the price as that of a single painting, claiming the highest price for such a painting ($25,000, instead of $4000 a picture) and fiscally launching her career.
Whether the actual sale took place was also refuted (by the intimates involved).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan getting old is a gift , cherish it.

Thanks Bob. Actually, I appreciate getting old. Consider the alternative? It;s just running to doctors all the time is a pain.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, Cowan, that might make an interesting debate about Stieglitz himself, which I've never personally heard, or read about in the biographies or either him or her, and am not qualified to address anyway, not knowing all the details.

In this particular case, here and now, however, the details are obvious. And the pricing isn't really the issue, although pretentious for something like that, but the manner of its generation.

 

[Vaughn]

Is photoshopping an Ai generated file, then printing the result with an inkjet printer, photography? Is the resulting print a photograph? The only light involved is light coming from the computer screen during editing and the lights on the inkjet printer control panel.

Just something that crossed the old brain. The original source is a photographic image so there is a thin connection...but at what point does something like this become digital art and not a photograph? Or is it important, except for what to write on the label?

 

[Don_ih]

@Vaughn -- I think the answer will depend on the individual case. The whole notion of something being a "photograph" has changed considerably since the term was first coined. We can't expect it to stay static in a dynamic field.

The print could have been art, but it would have needed to be something distinct from its source. Even pasting a cow jumping over the moon would distinguish it more from the source than colourizing it does.

 

[BrianShaw]

Just something that crossed the old brain. The original source is a photographic image so there is a thin connection...but at what point does something like this become digital art and not a photograph? Or is it important, except for what to write on the label?

If I'm not mistaken, Danzinger did not appear to represent that image as a photograph. I believe he put "AI generated artwork", or something like that, on the label. But he probably should have included a hyphen.

 

[Vaughn]

I agree with both of you. A different type of colorization would be the book of AA's color images published after his death (Ansel Adams in Color, 1993). Ansel was given Kodak color film to test. Many of the images in the book are ones he has printed/published in B&W, so it seems a sheet of color was occasionally exposed right after a B&W one.

Due to the original transparencies degrading over time, the color of the images in the book was determined more or less by committee. I thought I had the book on the shelf right where I could grab it, but Cape Light is in that spot instead, granted a better use of color, but I wonder where Ansel's book has wandered off to.

Edit to add...a little research led to a new edition of the book -- more images and the transparencies re-scanned. I have not seen it.

 

[Don_ih]

Danzinger did not appear to represent that image as a photograph

He used the word "image" for both his and Adams' original, with one reference to the original as "photograph". I'm not sure he's making a real distinction.

He is, however, careful to claim that his result is transformative and "a beautiful image on its own".

 

[Carnie Bob]

Is photoshopping an Ai generated file, then printing the result with an inkjet printer, photography? Is the resulting print a photograph? The only light involved is light coming from the computer screen during editing and the lights on the inkjet printer control panel.

Just something that crossed the old brain. The original source is a photographic image so there is a thin connection...but at what point does something like this become digital art and not a photograph? Or is it important, except for what to write on the label?

Vaughn.

I have considered this myself with my own work,

I like using film then solarizing the film during development BW and Colour. Then using high resolution scanner I produce a file that in PS is slightly or in some cases hugely modified, I then make 4 separation negs to the size of the print and contact them using historic photographic and wash off processes.

Lately I have stopped calling myself a photographer when I exhibit these works but rather a printmaker and these are prints made by hand, which I believe is a more correct description of my work.

I have a hard time justifying them as photographs even though the first step is making a film negative.

 

[Vaughn]

Makes sense. A photographer can be considered a type of printmaker. As a general term, it fits you better as you seem to be working in 'mixed' media of which one is photographic in nature.

 

[Carnie Bob]

Makes sense. A photographer can be considered a type of printmaker. As a general term, it fits you better as you seem to be working in 'mixed' media of which one is photographic in nature.

I plan to explore polymer plate continuous tone gravure in the future, with the hope of being able to do full colour prints, once again photography is involved but then it takes a unexpected turn. I think we are really living the best of times for photo printmaking.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

He used the word "image" for both his and Adams' original, with one reference to the original as "photograph". I'm not sure he's making a real distinction.

He is, however, careful to claim that his result is transformative and "a beautiful image on its own".

Using the word transformative can protect Danziger in two ways:

1. If he's proven wrong, and he used a copyrighted print to make his print, creating a new transformative artwork is allowed under current copyright rules.

2. If the original he used was no longer copyrighted, making a transformative image allows him to copyright the new image, or at least the elements that are new and transformative. Otherwise, it cannot be copyrighted if its not transformative. Copywriting the new image does not prevent other artists from making copies of the original non-copyrighted image or creating their own transformative image from the original that they can separately copyright. One issue is that since he used AI in at least part of his new work, the copyright office may not allow copyrighting, or may only allow copyrighting, of those parts created by a human hand that are transformative. Work created by AI cannot be copyrighted becasue the law requires a human to vcreate it.

 

[BrianShaw]

Using the word transformative

1. If he's proven wrong, and he used a copyrighted print to make his print, creating a new transformative artwork is allowed under current copyright rules.

Probably only if Fair Use applies. Otherwise, what’s the point a copyright?

 

[Don_ih]

"Transformative" is a vacuous term in his use. A legal interpretation would be on a case-by-case basis, decided by a judge. Would a judge find that print "transformative"? Depends on the judge. How much of an argument is there that colouring the photo is a significant change in statement, meaning, or idea of the work?

Transformative is only a requirement for using a copyrighted work in the production of a new distinct work. It's a way around copyright.

Satire can be an example of transformative work. All those Mad Magazine comics that spoofed tv shows and movies were transformative.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Probably only if Fair Use applies. Otherwise, what’s the point a copyright?

So 1) wouldn't apply if Fair Use is required and he couldn't sell it if it does. Good point. So it would seem that only 2) applies. (Danziger did mention somewhere that he had no intention of copyrighting it in any case.)

 

[BrianShaw]

So 1) wouldn't apply if Fair Use is required and he couldn't sell it if it does. Good point. So it would seem that only 2) applies. (Danziger did mention somewhere that he had no intention of copyrighting it in any case.)

As I understand, if Fair Use is valid (educational use, basically) then it’s use as-is or transformative/etc is okay. Otherwise, the valid copyright protects the item from use without permission/ license. To be honest, overthinking the legal ramifications is both dangerous and a waste of time. There are too many unknowns for a factually-based discussion. Let the copyright lawyers do that. We’ll hear the outcome eventually.

Copyright happens by creation. The registration only provides access to additional legal remedies if violated.